Elkins45
Member
Wow, who could have predicted this? <----- said with as much sarcasm as I can possibly muster
Atf open letter on the redesign of “stabilizing braces”
- Thread starter dogtown tom
- Start date
- Status
Will 1965 do?
redesign vt: to revise in appearance, function or content.
Probably a dead end. Using something in a way in which it was not intended is close enough to "revising the function" of the item that it wouldn't be worth arguing the point.
I don't think it's realistic to assume that if no one had asked, the issue would never have arisen or that the BATF's final stance on the brace would be different than it now is.
The only difference that asking made is that now we don't have to wait for a court case to find out how the BATF intends to interpret the law. If no one had asked, we would have found out when some poor guy (or gal) ended up in court arguing against the BATF that a brace that looks and works like a shoulder stock really isn't a shoulder stock even if that's how you're actually using it.
Well said.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Wow, who could have predicted this? <----- said with as much sarcasm as I can possibly muster"
So don't go and do something silly like blame the users, as so many currently are. I don't suppose you intend to use your influence with the NRA (voting powers) to pressure them to take up this issue the "right way" in the legislature? Because the NFA folks don't have the numbers to effect change apart from workarounds and random court cases.
TCB
So don't go and do something silly like blame the users, as so many currently are. I don't suppose you intend to use your influence with the NRA (voting powers) to pressure them to take up this issue the "right way" in the legislature? Because the NFA folks don't have the numbers to effect change apart from workarounds and random court cases.
TCB
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Probably a dead end. Using something in a way in which it was not intended is close enough to "revising the function" of the item that it wouldn't be worth arguing the point."
Wonder if we'll hear that when the ATF clamps down on two handed gripping of pistols of any sort, after this latest ruling has soaked in and become accepted. Even though past ATF rulings carry no legal precedent, they still cited them in support for this one, if you notice.
So, now we have all 12ga shotguns a penstroke away from being Destructive Devices, and all pistols a single letter away from being a felony if gripped properly...when will we admit this situation is untenable, and force the big gun representation groups to pay attention?
TCB
Wonder if we'll hear that when the ATF clamps down on two handed gripping of pistols of any sort, after this latest ruling has soaked in and become accepted. Even though past ATF rulings carry no legal precedent, they still cited them in support for this one, if you notice.
So, now we have all 12ga shotguns a penstroke away from being Destructive Devices, and all pistols a single letter away from being a felony if gripped properly...when will we admit this situation is untenable, and force the big gun representation groups to pay attention?
TCB
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, they are in violation if they shoulder it, and no, they don't have a permission slip. From the latest letter:
Elkins45
Member
I blame FDR, and I am one of the NFA folks.
Hyperbole like this isn't helpful. The law doesn't say designed to be fired exclusively with one hand.
War Squirrel
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 211
Can we just repeal the NFA already...? This is getting ridiculous.
I have brought this up a couple times. I don't think it's hyperbole. If you add a foregrip to a pistol it becomes an NFA item. You have redesigned it so that it no longer fits the definition of a pistol. Right? Everyone knows you can't put a VFG on your glock. Until you had to actually add (or I suppose subtract) a physical part to a firearm to redesign it.
This letter says the act of using the gun in the prohibited fashion is the redesign. Pistol with brace is OK. Shouldering brace redesigns it. Similarly, pistol is OK. Two hands on it has redesigned it into an AOW. Because it can't be designed to shoot with two hands. If it could, a VFG would be legal.
It's a pretty straight line of logic. If the mere use* of a firearm is enough to redesign it, then you can't redesign a pistol into a two handed weapon.
*There's precedent on the use thing. Those Birds head gripped 14" barrel shotguns are legal, until you conceal one, then they are instantly an AOW.
I don't know about you, but I would rather know exactly where they stand vs trying to guess with federal felonies on the line.
I mean, you can call other gun owners stupid for not wanting to go to prison for years, that's your prerogative. In the interest of keeping this High Road I won't tell you what I think of your opinion.
Heh yeah once upon a time I actually got flamed on here for suggesting that the Sig brace / SBR thing was a dark and uncertain road to travel....
But, being the High Road, I'll keep the 'Told Ya so's' to myself (for now.)
ETA: I will say that the premise of all of this is ridiculous; SBR's should not even be "a thing" that is regulated to begin with. And, judging by the NRA's recent facebook post this issue is clearly and certainly on their radar.
Last edited:
OP
OP
dogtown tom
Member
Do you understand why?
Attaching the Sig Arm Brace with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock is the illegal act.
Sheer and utter nonsense.
What did you redesign on the handgun?
Not a darn thing.
It's a pretty straight line of reading comprehension. Because you fail to understand the NFA definition of pistol, rifle, SBR, etc your "logic" is faulty.
Please post the citation to Federal law or ATF regulation that states anything remotely close.
BSA1
member
What makes you think it was gun owner(s) that asked? I would most likely suspect it was the anti-2A organizations and people that brought the issue up and pressured the BATFE into making the rule change.
Don't make the mistake of underestimating our enemies of the RBKA. They are smart, shrewd and are responsible for a lot of the laws we are dealing with today.
Elkins45
Member
Wasn't that the thread where we were accused of trying to prop up the NFA because we wanted to artificially maintain the value of the tax stamps?Heh yeah once upon a time I actually got flamed on here for suggesting that the Sig brace / SBR thing was a dark and uncertain road to travel....
But, being the High Road, I'll keep the 'Told Ya so's' to myself (for now.)
ETA: I will say that the premise of all of this is ridiculous; SBR's should not even be "a thing" that is regulated to begin with. And, judging by the NRA's recent facebook post this issue is clearly and certainly on their radar.
I don't do Facebook: what did the NRA say?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Tom, you and I went several rounds over this a couple weeks back, but you didn't have an answer then.
But they're saying specifically two things there about classifying that weapon as an AOW:
"...if its overall length is less than 26" ..."
OR <--- (Boolean operator that signifies that either of the preceding and following conditions create the specified effect.)
"... it is actually concealed on the person."
If its length is over 26" it is not an AOW. It is a GCA other "firearm" at that point. And a GCA other "firearm" can be any of several types of things, as you know. (PGO "shotgun-like object", semi-auto M1919 with no stock, bare AR receiver, etc.)
However ... and my whole reason for pointing this out ... if that other "firearm" is "actually concealed on the person," it is then an AOW. They say so RIGHT THERE.
If in their eyes, concealing an other "firearm" (like a 27" stockless weapon with a forward vertical grip) didn't create a Title II AOW, why did they write that?
That entire last clause is pointless and extraneous if they are not illustrating by it a second manner in which some thing that is not an AOW becomes an AOW.
Haha....NO!
People were too busy flooding the ATF with a question that had already been answered.....instead of mailing their representitives to repeal some NFA provisions.
Aaron Baker
Member
I've seen a number of posters asking "what about handguns"? "If you hold it with two hands, does it suddenly become an AOW?"
No.
And the reason is that while there's "redesigned" language in the "rifle" definition in the National Firearms Act, "pistol" is defined thusly:
Notice there's no "redesign" language?
What the ATF is saying with this ruling about SBRs is that if you use the arm brace as a stock, then the act of using it as a stock is "redesigning" the weapon. And redesigning is included in the "rifle" definition.
Whereas, if you have a pistol, and then you use it differently than originally designed, it doesn't matter because "redesign" isn't part of the definition.
Frankly, this is the reason that I believe that the ATF is legally wrong about adding vertical foregrips to pistols. If you buy a Glock, it was "originally designed" to be fired by holding it in one hand. By adding a vertical foregrip, you aren't changing how it was originally designed. You're, at best, redesigning it. And redesigning isn't a problem under the definition of "pistol" and so it doesn't cease to be a pistol.
But that's a fight that no one seems to want to have.
As for the answer to the question: how do we fight this?
You could certainly be arrested and fight it that way, but that would be stupid. The other option is to make a short-barreled rifle on a Form 1 that uses the arm brace as a stock, and pay the $200 tax. Then file suit in the United States Court of Claims, insisting on a refund of your tax because you have not actually made a short-barreled rifle by adding the arm brace that's used as a stock. You might or might not win, but that's the procedural method that Thompson Contender used to get to the US Supreme Court in their famous case.
Aaron
No.
And the reason is that while there's "redesigned" language in the "rifle" definition in the National Firearms Act, "pistol" is defined thusly:
Notice there's no "redesign" language?
What the ATF is saying with this ruling about SBRs is that if you use the arm brace as a stock, then the act of using it as a stock is "redesigning" the weapon. And redesigning is included in the "rifle" definition.
Whereas, if you have a pistol, and then you use it differently than originally designed, it doesn't matter because "redesign" isn't part of the definition.
Frankly, this is the reason that I believe that the ATF is legally wrong about adding vertical foregrips to pistols. If you buy a Glock, it was "originally designed" to be fired by holding it in one hand. By adding a vertical foregrip, you aren't changing how it was originally designed. You're, at best, redesigning it. And redesigning isn't a problem under the definition of "pistol" and so it doesn't cease to be a pistol.
But that's a fight that no one seems to want to have.
As for the answer to the question: how do we fight this?
You could certainly be arrested and fight it that way, but that would be stupid. The other option is to make a short-barreled rifle on a Form 1 that uses the arm brace as a stock, and pay the $200 tax. Then file suit in the United States Court of Claims, insisting on a refund of your tax because you have not actually made a short-barreled rifle by adding the arm brace that's used as a stock. You might or might not win, but that's the procedural method that Thompson Contender used to get to the US Supreme Court in their famous case.
Aaron
Apachedriver
Member
Aaron Baker,
I think you're reference is incorrect. What am I missing? You're using SBR rules to explain what constitutes the illegal use of the Sig Brace. However, it's an AR Pistol not an SBR. Aren't their lowers registered as Pistol and not Rifle lowers?
So if redesign only applies to rifles and not pistols then by your references above, it wouldn't be redesigning the AR Pistol by shouldering the Sig brace. I've seen another reference regarding specifically handguns with shoulder stocks but I can't find it at the moment. I think it would be what applies more to this situation with the AR Pistol. Through the use of a shoulder stock on a pistol, you've now redesigned it into the SBR category.
I think you're reference is incorrect. What am I missing? You're using SBR rules to explain what constitutes the illegal use of the Sig Brace. However, it's an AR Pistol not an SBR. Aren't their lowers registered as Pistol and not Rifle lowers?
So if redesign only applies to rifles and not pistols then by your references above, it wouldn't be redesigning the AR Pistol by shouldering the Sig brace. I've seen another reference regarding specifically handguns with shoulder stocks but I can't find it at the moment. I think it would be what applies more to this situation with the AR Pistol. Through the use of a shoulder stock on a pistol, you've now redesigned it into the SBR category.
Last edited:
seems the crime is the
the installation with "the intent" to use it as a shoulder stock.
Nothing in that says that occasional use of the brace as a stock is the problem. The problem is the intent to skirt the NFA by installing a product designed for one use for another.
Seems to me as long as a person was circumspect, it wouldn't be an issue if in a situation, one used their brace as a stock.
the installation with "the intent" to use it as a shoulder stock.
Nothing in that says that occasional use of the brace as a stock is the problem. The problem is the intent to skirt the NFA by installing a product designed for one use for another.
Seems to me as long as a person was circumspect, it wouldn't be an issue if in a situation, one used their brace as a stock.
OP
OP
dogtown tom
Member
And again, that isn't a citation from any federal law or ATF regulation. It's a response to a question and must be taken in it's entirety.
You could post that all day long but you still have not posted a citation to a regulation or law. (and you won't find one
)Nevermind...Aaron Baker did a much better job of forming his rebuttal
Not according to what the open letter says. It doesn't matter who installed the brace, yourself or the manufacturer.
Not according to what the open letter says. It doesn't matter who installed the brace, yourself or the manufacturer.
Last edited:
Yes.dogtown tom said:
dogtown tom said:
Nope. That's not what that letter says.
Nothing in those two paragraphs says a thing at all about installing the brace. If you buy a factory pistol with a SB-15 and shoulder it, you have created an SBR. The act of shouldering the pistol is what made it an SBR. It's pretty clear.
Which brings us back to my point. An factory AR pistol with a SIG brace is a "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)." If shouldering it, without changing any parts, redesigns it to an SBR, how, logically, does using two hands on a different pistol not redesign it? Especially since the BATFE has explicitly said that adding a part to that pistol to use two hands is forbidden. This letter says, clearly, that the use of a firearm constitutes a redesign of that firearm to whatever use it is being put to.
dogtown tom said:
I didn't redesign a darn thing on a Sig P516 7.5" either. But the ATF says I did.
dogtown tom said:
Really? This is not new news.
Here is the kind of shotgun I'm talking about: http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=88
Here is one ATF letter about it:http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/testttt20001.pdf
Note the last line of the second paragraph:
Another:http://s33.photobucket.com/user/rusticarts/media/RedactedPg1.jpg.html
Page 2: http://s33.photobucket.com/user/rusticarts/media/redactedPg2.jpg.html
Money quote:
(it's at the top of page 2)
Two (three if you count this one) different letters where the ATF explicitly says that you can change the NFA classification of a firearm just by your use of it, without a material change in the firearm itself. Tell me again how gripping a Glock wrong is different, in the law, than gripping an AR pistol wrong?
I do think that the gun community at large will not benefit from attempts to see how close to the NFA line it's possible to get without actually stepping over it.
It is possible that kind of activity could actually result in redrawing the line in some circumstances and it's unlikely that the new line would benefit us.
Basically what I'm saying is that I think that the SIG brace should have been designed so that it OBVIOUSLY didn't look anything like a shoulder stock and so that it would be very difficult or extremely uncomfortable to use the unmodified device as a shoulder stock. The predictable brouhaha has resulted in some new rulings that have the potential to be abused and the potential to be extended in directions that could significantly harm the gun community.
OP
OP
dogtown tom
Member
Apparently not.
Try reading the ACTUAL LAW.
You will be enlightened.
I have disturbing news for you......that is an ATF Open Letter not the law. Again, try reading the National Firearms Act. It ain't that difficult to understand.
"Shouldering" a pistol is not an illegal act in the NFA or GCA, but installing a stock is.
Obfuscate much?
That handgun definition is from the NFA. Using a "factory AR pistol with a SIG brace" isn't part of any NFA firearms definition.
Because it isn't an arm brace but a shoulder stock.......and Sig submitted a request for a determination letter for....wait for it.......an ARM BRACE. That's what ATF approved, not a shoulder stock.
If you submitted a design for a pistol bipod, and ATF responded that it is perfectly fine to have a bipod on a pistol...............so you build it and market it with the
as Sig did. Everyone raves about how awesome your bipod is as a forward grip and then it becomes clear that the intent WAS NOT as a bipod, but instead as a second vertical grip............and you got yourself in the same situation.Because using two hands on a pistol is not a violation of the NFA. redesigning a pistol by adding a second vertical grip or a shoulder stock brings it under the purview of the NFA.
Read the law first, then this letter will make sense.
As said ad nauseum, the Sig Arm Brace was approved as an arm brace. Your mistake was believing the internet experts who said it could be used as a shoulder stock. Note that SIG has NEVER COME CLOSE to putting anything in writing about the legality of shouldering the Sig Arm Brace. Don't you think it odd that the manufacturer gracefully sidesteps that little tidbit?
Then it shouldn't be too difficult to post the cite from Federal law should it?
Sorry, that isn't a citation. Keep looking.
See the bolded text?
Sorry, those letters don't support your argument.
It isn't.
Put a shoulder stock on either and you have an SBR.
I'm not going to go much farther on this, you are reading that letter wrong, and it's pretty plain.
That open letter says if you shoulder a factory Sig pistol with a factory installed Arm Brace you have made an SBR.
So tell me, in that situation, what exact act mamade the NFA firearm?
That open letter says if you shoulder a factory Sig pistol with a factory installed Arm Brace you have made an SBR.
So tell me, in that situation, what exact act mamade the NFA firearm?
- Status
